Talk:Zionism/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

please explain deletion of Sucharov survey

@DMH223344: On 2024-06-18T00:24:04, you deleted the survey of American Jews by Sucharov, saying "out of place table".

I believe this table is critical to understanding the current Israel-Hamas war, because it suggests that very few American Jews would support the routine mistreatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza if they knew about it. My research, discussed in Wikiversity:How might the world be different if the PLO had followed Gandhi?, suggests they do NOT know about it, because the media they find credible rarely if ever report on it. On the other side, the media consumed by supporters of Palestinians, rarely if ever report on how Israelis and supporters of Israel react differently to violent and nonviolent actions by Palestinians. As a result each side supports counterproductive actions.

If you think that table belongs elsewhere in this article or in another Wikipedia article, please help me find a place for it. If you think it does not belong in Wikipedia at all, please explain why.

Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia:Prime objective to building "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A few points:

• It's not clear what they were asked or what the response format was.
• I think there should be some analysis of the results presented, not just a table without any context.
• Maybe a case could be made for a section in this article about "conceptions of zionism" or something like that. This could belong there, but there would have to be some other content to justify it.
• There's a quote in your linked article "Similarly, the nonviolence of the First Intifada led to the election of Yitzhak Rabin as Prime Minister of Israel on a platform of negotiating with Palestinians. That led to the Oslo Accords and the current State of Palestine. We claim that if the Palestinians had maintained nonviolent discipline, the two-state solution promised at Oslo would likely have worked to benefit all." This is the first time I've heard this narrative--it's inconsistent with most RS out there.

DMH223344 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"Deeply embedded" vs "considered important"

"considered important" is more precise than the vague "deeply embedded". What does it even mean to be embedded?

What's missing from "considered important"? DMH223344 (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

:"considered important" is not "more precise". It changes something stated as fact ("it is embedded") into a vague 'considered'- e,g, only some consider it so, and it doesn't say considered by whom.

To be embedded means to be at the core of something, rather than merely important. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, seems quite obvious. Possibly there is better wording than "considered important", but "deeply embedded" is too vague be acceptable language here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Something cannot be important to Jewish history. It can be important to the study of Jewish history, which isn't the same thing. I rewrote the original lengthy sentence because it made a similar error by using a preposition before several nouns where sometimes it didn't belong. Also, I don't see what's wrong with 'deeply embedded'. It's a simple fact, not weasel and not vague either. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed the whole phrase, and copyedited the rest of the sentence. That Palestine corresponds to the Land of Israel in Judaism is worth explaining. That it's important to Judaism is obvious; we don't need to beat the reader over the head by saying it's important to Jewish religion, culture, tradition, history, identity, etc. etc. in the first paragraph of the lead of Zionism. If the reader wants to learn more about the Land of Israel, they can click the link. Also, WP:BRITANNICA is not a good source. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Land of Israel wiki article is a very reliable source for what is a very complicated set of concepts and only appears to be conflated with Palestine as a commensurate synonym in relatively modern times, when it was extended to include the Philistine area (Gaza Strip) outside of the biblically derived frontiers of the god-given Israel (though even these were subject to rabbinical disputation) . Certainly it is now used interchangeably with the latter, however.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

So do we have a decision here? I see we still have "deeply embedded". I'm sure we can do better than that for the purposes of an encyclopedia. DMH223344 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest changing "an area deeply embedded in Jewish history, religion and the identity" into "an important and central area in Jewish history, religion and identity" Vegan416 (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

that sounds reasonable to me DMH223344 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely better. Boldly implementing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I implemented "an area of central importance in Jewish history and religion", removing "Jewish identity" as it is not clear if this aspect is due for inclusion (Land of Israel etc not mentioned in the lead of that article for example). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are starting to make further changes than I suggest changing "a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition, an area of central importance in Jewish history and religion" into "a region called the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition, which is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, and of central importance in Jewish history and religion" Vegan416 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Off topic discussion IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. In theory, the reader could click the link and learn more about it. :-P Frankly I never understood why Wikipedia has separate articles for Land of Israel, Holy Land, Promised Land, and Palestine (region). There ought to be one article about the region, one sub-article about the region in religion, and if there's enough RS, additional sub-articles about the region in specific religions. Levivich (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Yep. Terminological pullulation like that's all pretty silly, sorry dumb-arsed. But I don't imagine anyone has the Sitzfleisch , let alone an Iron Dome efficient anti-editwarring defense system to fix the mess. Let's leave invitations to suicide to the usual suspects:) What's done is (over)done and quarterbaked. I for one will go to bed reciting with a sigh 諦め (akirame)(resignation) Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC) @Levivich you will understand why, once you start thinking how to call your suggested single article... Vegan416 (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Palestine in religion. Sub-article: Palestine in Abrahamic religions (Holy Land and Promised Land can redirect here). Sub-articles: Land of Israel (aka "Palestine in Judaism"), Palestine in Christianity, Palestine in Islam. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC) I'm not surprised by your choices :-) But many people will object to you, since your suggestion seems to give precedence to the name Palestine over the other names, which is arguably a violation of NPOV. I mean, because of NPOV reasons we have in Wikipedia even an article about Turtle Island, despite the fact that this name for North America was invented only in the 20th century. In contrast the name Land of Israel appears in the Bible at least 2500 years ago. Vegan416 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC) The article is called Palestine (region), which is why the subarticles would be "Palestine in...". Doesn't matter what name is the oldest. Per WP:AT policy (common name, consistency, etc.). If the main article were "Israel (region)" then the subarticles would be "Israel in...". Levivich (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Then, if you decide to have only one article on the subject then people will ask you why do you call it Palestine (region) rather than Israel (region)? Also you didn't explain why, according to your suggestion, Turtle Island deserves an article of its own, and Land of Israel doesn't? Vegan416 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Sigh. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) This is off topic IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) @Nishidani Let me remind you that the borders of "Palestine" are also a very fluid term. I always find it weird when people talk with utmost seriousness about the "historical borders of Palestine" when the borders which they refer to were first set out only around 1920-1922, as the borders of the British mandate. Vegan416 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Oh thanks for the courtesy of reminding me of the obvious. Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC) If it's obvious then what exactly is your complaint about about the article Land of Israel? Vegan416 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Oh fachrissake. Lay off trying to spin a twisted thread out of some brief conversational lint that had an amiable purpose, of precision. I haven't got Ariadne's email to call for succour, were I to engage in the predictable labyrinths of waffle looming. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe use "a central important area" instead of "an atra considered important". Vegan416 (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Deeply embedded goes beyond being just important: it is all encompassing and includes that which cannot be expressed simply and distinctly, which is the intended meaning here. By its very nature it includes an element of vagueness. It is therefore more accurate than of central importance. If any editor doesn't understand that then we cannot help, but as an encyclopedia we should not always aim for the lowest common denominator but try to write to the level of an averagely well educated reader, just like any other encyclopedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

How is something that is vague considered to be more accurate? DMH223344 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If it describes vagueness it is accurate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

So if that's representative of RS, let's describe the connection as vague and important. We can of course be more precise than "deeply embedded", even if describing a vague concept. DMH223344 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Some people cannot handle the indefinable, they strive to operate like a computer with every thought having to be precisely defined in relation to every other thought otherwise something is wrong with it. Defining the indefinable requires a different mindset, an alternative way of viewing the world. English caters for that ambiguity with certain words and phrases, such as deeply embedded. If we all operated like a robot, the world would be a boring place, wouldn't it? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia... Per WP:MOS "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a talk page not the encyclopedia. If refering to 'deeply embedded', it's a perfectly normal phrase, understood by an averagely educated reader, which is our target audience. If somebody doesn't understand what it means, meaning they are not up to that level of understanding, we cannot do much about that. Catering for the lowest common denominator is not our job and is fraught with problems. Considered important is not a synonym of deeply embedded, it has a different meaning, so the question is not about comparing two words that mean the same (and using the one most understood), it's about which meaning to describe. If you can come up with other words that are synonyms of deeply embedded then please show us and we can choose which one is more understood by an averagely educated reader. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No idea what deeply embedded means here and I resent the implication that I am not averagely educated, whatever that means. What happened to RS? Do we have RS saying anything about this, and if so, what do they say? Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Me either. Clearly goes against WP:WEASEL: "The word "clearly" and other words of its kind are often a form of handwaving which asserts that a conclusion has been demonstrated. Wikipedia articles should not be making arguments in the first place. Simply state facts, cite the sources of them, and let the readers draw their own conclusions." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

Change "Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist." to "Some proponents of Zionism..."--the sources provided do not support the blanket statement and therefore indicate an ideological bias towards anti-Zionism that is not an accurate representation of discourse surrounding anti-Zionism and colonialism. 75.74.80.141 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The use of the word "necessarily" is doing the work of not ascribing the statement to all proponents of Zionism. See also WP:WEASEL -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "not necessarily" does as good a work in clarifying this as "Some proponents of Zionism do not reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist." I might make the requested change after giving it some more thought. Vegan416 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree this should be reworded. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of "Jewish homeland" vs "Jewish state"

RS describe zionism as seeking a "Jewish state", not just a "homeland":

Gorny: Almost all sectors of Zionism wanted a Jewish state in Palestine, whether they declared their intent or preferred to camouflage it, whether or not they perceived it as a political instrument, whether they saw sovereign independence as the prime aim, or accorded priority to the task of social construction.

Shapira: At the May 1942 Biltmore Conference in New York, the Zionists stated that their war aim was to establish “a Jewish Commonwealth” in Palestine—“commonwealth” being a synonym for an independent state.

Goldberg, to the promised land, describing Ben-Gurion: For Ben-Gurion, ‘the complete and absolute fulfilment of Zionism’ became identified and coeval with the achievement of statehood. also: Zionism in practice — meaning the state of Israel...

Penslar: The realization of Zionism, however, demanded more than the development of the state, because it was linked with a sense of mission to the diaspora.

Avineri: Zionism essentially always believed—perhaps with the exception of Jabotinsky and his disciples—that the establishment of the state would be only a necessary condition for Jewish renaissance, never a sufficient one.

Finkelstein: Zionism sought to establish a state that the Jewish people could claim fully as their own.

Righteous victims: A state was now—at last, publicly—what Zionism was all about.

We should replace "homeland" with "state" in the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong agree. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making this change. But you also removed the comment "...in particular, a state with a Jewish demographic majority." RS typically describe the demographic majority as a necessary condition for a "Jewish State." Without this comment, it's not clear at all what is meant by "Jewish State." DMH223344 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to restore that, I think it's fine either way. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If we look at the rather peculiar article Homeland for the Jewish people, that says of the Basel Program that Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine. This later became "national home for the Jewish people" in the Balfour Declaration because the idea of a state was completely unacceptable at the time. "Jewish state" is essentially propaganda, since the unilaterally declared state (which was not the Jewish state of the partition plan) had 25% non Jewish population. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, you found yet another wikipage giving a wrong translation. I thought I had fixed them all. The problem is that lots of people don't know that public law is a thing, so they invent all sorts of interpretations of the "public" in the sentence (which is part of the hyphenated word "öffentlich-rechtlich"="(under) public law", a standard phrase in German law). A correct translation is "Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law." See Talk:Basel Program for more. Anyway, more to the point of this present discussion is that it really does say "home" and not "homeland" or "state". The reason it is deliberately weak is that they were hoping for support from the Turkish sultan and knew that the slightest hint of wanting sovereignty would make that impossible. Zero^talk 03:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that spiritual Zionism did not call for the establishment of a political state but rather a spiritual Jewish center in Palestine, to serve as a cultural beacon for Jews living in the diaspora, rejuvenate Jewish culture, and prevent assimilation. I'm not sure the usage of "state" in the definition of Zionism is inclusive enough to actual represent all the major streams in the movement. HaOfa (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

RS refer to Political Zionism and its variations as simply Zionism. Religious zionism is of course a different ideology DMH223344 (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Apropos this revert and accompanying threat

this reverts to a text that cannot be verified in one key point at a minimum (re-establish) and speaks of prior interventions for the status quo as being taken against consensus. If you consult the edit history of those intervening to restore 'colonization' they are 11 (Unbandito, Dan Murphy,Iskander323,Selfstudier,Zero0000, Nableezy,IOHANNVSVERVS, Makeandtoss, DMH223344,Skitash, Nishidani). Those who have expunged the term are 7 (Oleg Yunakov, מתיאל, Vegan416,Galamore, O.maximov, ABHammad, Kentucky Rain2, Icebear244).

I dislike editwarring. I made one revert providing substantive documentation for the phrase, while several opposing editor have been reverting consistently for a month. Despite the threat given, I am restoring the prior text because the editsummary was false, passing off the minority view as a majority consensus and therefore is invalid. Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone with a serious objection should not revert, but join the discussion. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And just as a matter of note, the 7 reverters have a total of 9,520 edits to their account (and three have an average of 900 edits, two being recently registered), the majority have a combinede history of 323,045 edits to wikipedia. This means nothing, and it also implies a lot, about familiarity with the project. Every body has equal status here, but experience tells one that sudden show-ups with scarce experience must exercise, like the rest of us, caution about gaming. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I left them a message at their talk to that effect. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani, once again you are spreading false claims about me. If you consult my edit history here you'll see that I never "expunged" the term "colonization", nor did I make any revert or participated in any edit-warring regarding this term. The only edit I made with regard to it in the article is to add a citation needed tag, when there were no references to support this term in the lead, i.e. before you added your citations. Of course I think that your citations still don't support adding this term in the first paragraph in wikivoice, but I didn't have time to deal with it then. Now, as you know, I am collecting sources that will base a very solid policy-based argument against the inclusion of this term there. I do agree though that until I present this argument (hopefully on Sunday or Monday) there is no ground to remove it yet. But this will be very temporary. Vegan416 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You're quite right. In fact of the 7 named, your editing here has been exemplary on 'colonization' (not so much on the virtually unattested 're-establishment') , asking for references, which I duly supplied. My only defense is that I have been in Rome most of the day, frigging around trying to get home with a transport strike on, only to come back here and see a complaint that will cause me to waste more time. The number remains 7 because Galamore reverted. But the other number becomes 12 because I overlooked Levivich (Undid revision 1228669104 by Galamore a group of new accounts edit warring doesn't override talk page consensus or the mainstream views of RS) Note that he talks of a talk page consensus, one reflected in the edit-warring. I must be off for an hour or two, sundowner thirst overrules wikipedia everytime. Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic – IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'll accept that as an apology. Everybody makes mistakes. However there is still the issue of you falsely blaming me of wishing to expel the Arabs. As for "re-establish" it is actually very much attested in the relevant sources. However my scan of them does seem to show that more sources prefer to use the simpler "establish", if that trend continues I'll withdraw this suggestion. Vegan416 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC) You wrote. Nishidani, Being a Zionist myself I am of course by definition "intimately familiar with the multiplicity of things said about Zionism by Zionists" :-) For example that Zionism is the movement for the self-determination of the Jewish people, that Zionism is the fulfillment of the hopes of generations of Jews to return to their ancient homeland, that Zionism is a movement for establishing a Jewish state, that Zionism is to free the Jews from the persecutions of the exile, that Zionism is a movement of decolonization of the Land of Israel from the Arabs, Vegan416 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) let's look at that analytically. Anyone who writes that their identity is X and then defines X as consisting of Xa,Xb,Xc,Xd,Xe etc. is saying that Xe is of part that identity. Concretely ‘I, Vegan, am a Zionist. Zionism includes among its elements a movement to ‘decolonize’ the Land of Israel of Arabs,’ ergo . . Sentences can all be reduced to their logical properties, and the proposition you enunciated means what I said it means, regardless of retrospective arguments that one didn’t mean to say this or that. It was said. If someone asserts they are Catholic and lists several core elements of their faith, among which is the doctrine of papal infallibility and yet, when their interlocutor says, ‘you believe in the infallibility of the pope’, rebuffs this as a false inference stating they didn’t mean that at all, and that their meaning has been 'falsified, they are contradicting themselves, by failing to be aware of the meaning of their own remarks. I accept you may not have realized this is what your remark entails. That happens to all of us, because as often as not, as German philosophers used to say, it is not we who speak, but language that speaks through us. And what we do if we are trained to think analytically, is to observe often the dissonance between what one thinks one has said, and what the propositional form of those statements actually means. There was no falsification.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I note that when I replied to an accusation, the reply was hatted, while the accusation, which makes out I falsify things, is retained. It should not have been hatted, because this is the kind of accusation that is emerging at AE, and one should not allow this page to retain an insinuation while hiding the response.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

11 to 6 then. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I told you before to reply on this in my page here. Nobody will stop you there. what is AE BTW? Please reply there. Vegan416 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you are better off staying out of it. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Material removed as in the wrong place

David Ben-Gurion stated that "There will be no discrimination among citizens of the Jewish state on the basis of race, religion, sex, or class." Likewise, Vladimir Jabotinsky avowed "the minority will not be rendered defenseless... [the] aim of democracy is to guarantee that the minority too has influence on matters of state policy." Supporters of Zionism, such as Chaim Herzog, argue that the movement is non-discriminatory and contains no racist aspects.

I've just reread the article. It's pretty shabby and cries out for a thorough rewrite. I excerpted the passage above as irrelevant to the second first para. Each begs a challenge. Ben-Gurion stated that and then proceeded to place all Palestinian citizens of Israel under military administration, something which lasted for 18 years, until 1966. I.e. a structural discrimination on the basis of 'race'. Etc.edtc. Pretty primary quotes are not an argument, and, if used so are WP:OR. One needs secondary sources to sustain such an incipit. Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

undue weight flag on "Ethnic unity and descent from Biblical Jews"

added by @Galamore with edit summary: "adding undue weight tag, this is far from a main belief of Zionism, also uses selective sourcing. Should be discussed and maybe dropped)"

What is "this"? And please explain how this section uses "selective sourcing" DMH223344 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to know about that, too. Should be a section flag not an article flag and how come there was no discussion following its placement? Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

this has now been dropped DMH223344 (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

About this removal

Inappropriate use of primary source. That precise quote is provided in Alan Balfour, The Walls of Jerusalem:Preserving the Past, Controlling the Future, Wiley 2019 ISBN 978-1-119-18229-0 p.59

And indeed I thought I had used it citing this particular source. In any case it should be restored per Balfour. Isn't it better, if dissatisfied with a source, to just google for two extra seconds and replace it? Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The Iron Wall does not say that certain Zionists accept the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial (a concept that did not exist at the time) or that it was exceptionalist. In fact, not ev en the quotes provided by the other two sources say anything like that. Mawer10 (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. What does Jabotinsky know about Zionism anyway?Dan Murphy (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the popular expression for this pretext for removal is 'strawman'. The article is 'Zionism', the section is about 'Revisionist Zionism', whose founder was Jabotinsky, who stated the remark we quote about 'colonising' as a necessity for the movement. We provide three sources: a quote from one passage in Jabotinsky's original essay, and then two scholarly and secondary -Lenni Brenner and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi - which cite a similar remark from 'The iron Wall'.

I find your response to this incomprehensible.

• There's nothing in that text asserting that 'certain Zionists accept the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial'.

Well, we are not citing Jabotinsky's Iron Wall to make any such inference.

• 'Zionism as settler-colonial (a concept that did not exist at the time)'. Of course it didn't. Patrick Wolfe, bless his memory, came up with that 70 years later. But no one is saying Jabotinsky, in that quote, is anticipating Wolfe or that theory.
• 'or that it was exceptionalist.'

Of course, but the text is not claiming that Zionism was exceptionalist. I gather that you are reading some remarks on a section of the talk page and inferring from those generalizations that they must be measured against what Jabotinsky wrote in that remark. That is extroardinary. There is no connection. In any case, the removal remains totally unmotivated. But, while I see it has been properly reverted, I will 'in duke horse' add Balfour's citation of it, if 'primary source' is your issue with it (Primary sources are usable in this case, because the thrust is confirmed by secondary sources). You have a thousand edits, or so. So please take a little more time to master the work rules.Nishidani (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Overview section

There is an inappropriate image/content attached to the phrase "secular Jews" in one of the first paragraphs of this section. Someone with more knowledge than me on how to remove this perversion should do so immediately. from user @152.133.7.197

Why is there an "overview" section in this article? What's the best way to merge it into the rest of the text? Should someone just "be bold" and do it? I imagine if we discuss each point we will never agree. DMH223344 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole article is an overview. To this point, and to Nishidani's point above ("cries out for a thorough rewrite"), I see Zionism as a WP:BROAD article, whose primary purpose should be as a navigational aid, to organize and link to various sub-articles. Most of the detail should be in the sub-articles.

The TOC should look something like this:

• Lead
• Terminology
• History - should be condensed to be much shorter than it is currently, and should include the "role in the I-P conflict" stuff
• Features (or "characteristics" or something, but I don't like "beliefs") - needs to be limited to features that are common across all types of Zionism, not just some types
• Types - here is where to list the various sub-types of Zionism
• Non-Jewish support
• Anti-Zionism
• See also, etc.

Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree mostly, especially about "Features" or "Characteristics" (not sure if either are great) instead of "beliefs". Maybe "Principles"?

I think "role in IP" deserves its own section since "History" would be focused on the history of the Zionist project. DMH223344 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The history section is generally huge. See the section sizes up top. Ripe for a split. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

On "features" - the "overview" section currently begins with "common characteristics", so that's sort of ready to be turned into a general features section preceding the specific "types" section, or as the general introduction to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we have secondary sources analysing the common features in the several or more varieties of Zionist thought and practice? My major problem is with how Zionism is conceptualized historically, and most of the sources I am familiar with addressing this do not break it down that way. Of course, Lev's proposal is sensible. Getting there is another matter.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Two sources that come to mind are Zionism: an Emotional state (Penslar), and Zionism and the Arabs: a study of ideology (Gorny). Ben-Ami also discusses this at some length in his Scars of War. Shapira discusses "left" vs "right" in the Zionist movement wrt the use of violence (Land and Power). There is also Image and Reality (Finkelstein) which focuses on political and cultural zionism but does not spend too much time discussing individual zionisms within those.

Part of the challenge is that there are both ideological and political differences between these groups (although most differences are political rather than ideological, esp wrt the basic tenets). And also that when RS say "zionism" they almost always mean political zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be dwelling on the various types of Zionism since RS primarily describe "Zionism" based on the ideology, tactics and strategy of the Zionist mainstream. DMH223344 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 Routledge Handbook on Zionism's intro calls it "Classifying Zionism" (Google Books preview), perhaps we should call it "Classifications". BTW, does everybody agree this is a good source on which to base this article? Levivich (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems uniquely apt. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "base"? Ill have to spend some time with this source DMH223344 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

After skimming the introduction, I would say that no i do not agree this is a good source to base this article. DMH223344 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems to emphasize differences between different forms of Zionism in an unorganized way, leaving the reading thinking there isn't a fundamental set of principles that define what Zionism is. Plenty of RS show very specifically what the foundational ideas of Zionism are and have been historically. DMH223344 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the third to last paragraph is so disconnected from reality, I would hesitate to use this source for anything in the 21st century. DMH223344 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, is there mention of the IP conflict *anywhere* in this introduction? DMH223344 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

At a quick read (England vs Holland, and the discussion now beginning) Shindler's overview is odd. One of the distinctive features of Zionism in Israeli/diaspora studies for decades was the total elision of the indigenous (other) context. The change in paradigm in the last three decades pivots around this silence. But it seems to be apparent that histories of Zionism of the numerous kinds Shindler covers exhibit that tendency - they read Zionism in terms of its internal dynamics, and not in terms of the conflict with the 'other' intrinsic to Zionism's practices. The thrust of settler colonialism studies in this field was to critique that silence, and amend it by, in the wake of Baruch Kimmerling and Gershon Shafir's 1980s studies, re-examining this lost context. I'm paraphrasing my memory of an acute metacritical essay on this ten years or so ago. Gabriel Piterberg,* Israeli Sociology's Young Hegelian: Gershon Shafir and the Settler-Colonial Framework Journal of Palestine Studies, 44: 3, Spring 2015 pp. 17-38 (and many elaborations on the point followed). In that perspective, the Routledge preview strikes me as vitiated by an a conservative infra-Zionist approach which still fails to see (and it is a methodological defect) the elephant in the room (how each type, variety of Zionism in their respective fields affected the Palestinians who were ineludibly impacted in numerous ways by almost every implemented variety of Zionism. Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• To anticipate objections to this source, I am familiar with this Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this instead:

• Lead
• Terminology
• History
• Historiography
• Support for Zionism
• Anti-Zionism
• See also, etc.

The "types" (or whatever you call them) of Zionism can be linked in the #History section--e.g., we can link to and briefly describe Political Zionism in the part of the History section where we mention the rise of Political Zionism. Same with Labour Zionism, Religious Zionism, etc. We can link to Types of Zionism in the lead and/or infobox. In my view, that achieves the goal of providing the reader with a link to these sub-articles and placing them in context with one another.

I also think that the entirety of the History section, and Zionism, will be about the I-P Conflict, so there isn't a need for a separate section about that in addition to the History section (and the I-P conflict can be mentioned in the lead, and also the infobox). But that's just my view.

The #Historiography can be the place to discuss "theories about Zionism," e.g. it's nationalism, it's settler colonialism, Penslar's new theory that it's an emotion, etc.

"Support for Zionism" should have a section about Jewish support for Zionism. (A heading called "Non-Jewish support for Zionism" implies all Jews support Zionism.) Levivich (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a collectively edited sandbox with some such alternative is worth considering? Is there any preciedent for this? It would certainly avoid a lot of edit whoring.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is great. The sandbox idea sounds great, but like a possible edit conflict nightmare. Really disappointing to see how weak wikipedia's support for collaboration is. DMH223344 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm pressed for time, and this is a large task. Someone interested in doing such a revision might draft, bit by bit, a revised text according to Lev's suggestion, and post links here every time a section is completed, for input, as comments under the sections on that page. So it would avoid edit-wars there. The lead, per policy, would be the last part to be written. I have in mind what Tom Reedy and myself were given the opportunity to do at the Shakespeare Authorship Question which was hopelessly compromised by edit-warring. Admins suggested the sceptics of an alternative candidate like Tom and myself, prepare our ideal page, while the promotor of the de Vere hypothesis could do his version, with neither side interfering. I did a first draft, Tom, a really accomplished Shakespearean scholar, then rewrote and greatly finessed my draft. The other party simply dipped out. He apparently couldn't do it in another sandbox, with assistance from other true believers or alone, perhaps through topic ignorance, inability or fear of the competition were he to accept the challenge. So, once our draft alone was completed, it was accepted as the only horse in the race and then submitted to FA, where dozens of specialists could have a go at knocking it for any defects, formal, verification, style. It passed. This took some months, but it stopped several years of pointless bickering. I often wonder why this strategy might not be used more broadly for conflicted articles. I.e. each 'POV' produce their ideal version, and then compare the results, to evaluate which version comes closer to FA standards. Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I will try this, but it will take some time before I come back with anything. If you could take some time to share some sources that you all think are important, that would be greatly appreciated. I am starting with: Goldberg (To the promised land), Gorny (Zionism and the Arabs), Avineri (The making of modern zionism), Masalha (The Zionist Bible), Almog (Zionism and the Arabs), Flapan (Zionism and the Palestinians) DMH223344 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

1. I don't really agree that the entire history section should be about the IP conflict--of course there is relevant history for the development of Zionism in Europe, and possibly some discussion of protozionist initiatives.

2. The way I'm thinking of this re-write, the types of zionism will play a much smaller role than they currently do in the article.

3. Lastly, shouldnt we also have a section describing *what* zionism is, as a movement and an ideologically? I imagine this would discuss: territorial concentration and the desirability of a Jewish majority and possibly a Jewish state in Palestine, revival of the hebrew language/renaissance of jewish culture, negation of diaspora life/the abnormality of diaspora life and the "conquest of labor". DMH223344 (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph sentence

"of a Jewish homeland in Mandatory Palestine" shouldn't this just be Palestine given that Zionism had focused on Palestine prior to 1917, i.e. prior to Mandatory Palestine that came to being in 1920? Makeandtoss (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Idem Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, article is locked. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I dont know how to do it, but you can ask the locking admin to change the text, can't you. Since it's a fact, and the text we have is visibly flawed,. per consensus, they should act on such a request. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

And it would be helpful to know how long we have to wait until editing can rebegin. As is usual, a locked page for edit-warring simply means the warriors lose interest. No sign of their presence on the talk page. 3 of the 7 troublemakers are permabanned. The lock arose from reverts over just one word in the whole article, and that is now stable with a 12 vs 4 agreement.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Which three were permabanned? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Um, perhaps that's not the technical word for one, but those whose accounts were indefinitely blocked were Icebear244, 916crdshn and Kentucky Rain24.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We say "eventual focus on establishment of a Jewish homeland in Mandatory Palestine". At a previous stage it had focused on establishment in Ottoman Palestine, and in its final stage etc. But in a sense the reader is always correct about clarity. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

But that does not follow the previous part of the sentence which states the goal was in a place outside of Europe, thus the "eventual" refers to the territory of choice specifically. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Eventual is supererogatory, and confusing. It is confusing because by its placement it mixes 'Zionism' (the political movement created by Theodor Herzl) with prior 'return to Zion' movements like Lovers of Zion etc. Our article is focused on the former, and alludes to the other as background, seeing Zionism as the organized crystallisation of promptings to emigrate to Palestine. Hovevei Zion was exclusively concerned with Palestine/Eretz Israel, but statehood wasn't its focus, whereas that was the core of Herzl's formulation. In Der Judenstaat (1896) he did mention Argentine as an alternative, but realistically added 'The very name' of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvellousI potency,' and the various other options floated for a few years never got off foot. The First Zionist Congress a year later formally endorsed Palestine as the aim.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what you said about the focus being on Herzl's movement and the other being its background. I think eventual is necessary to highlight how there were different territories considered which were eventually settled with a focus on Palestine as the aim. Do you have any suggested alternatives that would highlight this important point? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the point is important. The alternatives were a momentary blip, and Palestine became the default aim for Zionists from the very outset, as we see in Herzl's preference and the Ist Zionist Congress. It's not lead-worthy- But then again, I have no desire to puish the point.Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Example of how a redraft might look. Terminology

Since the page is locked in, ostensibly to keep out the usual suspects and their focus on one word, the article cannot be improved or revised except laboriously. In any case, this is how I think it might be reordered (a) Using the received text (b) weeding out the many arbitrary sources, esp. general books and articles that incidentally contain some 'useful stuff'. (c) Prioritizing just say 15-20 RS by specialists, as I have done here with Penslar (d) trying to simplify it by cutting out the unessential. I'm too busy to go further, but I hope this helps-

Terminology

The term "Zionism" is derived from the word Zion (Hebrew: ציון, romanized: Tzi-yon), a hill in Jerusalem which from ancient times became a core symbol of the Jewish cult centered around the kingship of Yahweh established in that city., and thereafter became emblematic of a sacred association between Israel and the Jewish people.

As early as 1882, in a German pamphlet entitled Auto-Emancipation the Russo-Polish Jewish doctor and activist Leon Pinsker had written of the need, in the face of anti-Semitism, for the Jews to emancipate themselves by international mobilization to establish a national homeland. A new generation of Eastern European Jewish nationalists arose and, in 1884, federated in a movement called Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion), which then began to promote piecemeal settlement in Palestine. The first use of the term Zionism itself is attributed to the Austrian Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the Kadimah nationalist Jewish students' movement; . he employed the word in 1890 in his journal Selbst-Emancipation (Self-Emancipation), Theodor Herzl initially used the word to denote these earlier movements before embracing it for his own proposal for establishing a homeland abroad.

Sources

• Glatzer, Nahum N.; Buber, Martin (1997) [1973]. "Foreword". On Zion:The History of an Idea. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-815-60482-2.
• Kühntopf-Gentz, Michael (1990). Nathan Birnbaum: Biographie. Eberhard-Karls-Universität zu Tübingen .
• Penslar, Derek (2020). Theodor Herzl: The Charismatic Leader. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-18040-4.
• Ollenburger, Ben C. (1987). Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. Bloomsbury Publishing . ISBN 978-0-567-31141-2.

Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I would think we should also focus on books about Zionism. At the moment the references section is full of journal articles which makes it hard to discern mainstream views from notable views from fringe views. DMH223344 (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want wiki to take up Ollenburger's arguments re Mount Zion's symbolic history, I think you should try Mount Zion first. And even then there would be a WP:SYNTH issue including it here. Better to just rely on Glatzer for the whole thing. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would I want wiki to take up Ollenburger's arguments? At the moment, we have as a source a book by Menashe Harel, about Zion being a hill with symbolic value for Jews (This is Jerusalem, Menashe Harel, Canaan Publishing, Jerusalem, 1977, pp. 194–195)

As with a score or more other sources here, this is just plain useless and cried out for a better, high quality RS stating more or less the same point.

• (a) Harel was a geographer, with no known competence in stating anything other than that Zion is a hill
• (b) Canaan Publishing? That's almost a self-publishing venue.
• (c)The book is very dated (and the remark banal, a cliché.

I substituted it with Ollenburger because the issue touched on by Harel is very complex, and Ollenburger has a very thorough coverage of it, as an expert on the topic itself, of Zion as a symbol. Secondly, unlike Harel's book, this gives the reader a direct link (for both verification, and for further exploration of a point we barely have time to touch on)

Ollenburger has of course, (like Nahum Glatzer, Martin Buber) his religious views about the symbolic value of 'Zion', but he does, unlike the Glatzer Foreword, provide a very detailed overview of all of the scholarly views about that symbol, together with a useful survey of the state of scholarship on the theories of symbols.

The section is about terminology, not etymology (for which the Mount Zion article provides a good survey of course).

Glatzer was a brilliant scholar but his brief Foreword is very generic, more concerned with celebrating Buber's life and unlistened to theories about what the quintessence of 'Zion'(ism) was, than approaching the theme (Zion through history) in anything other than cursory terms. My preference is, always, to come up with a source which allows the reader direct access to the larger issues which, for succinctness, we don't have time to go into.

There is no WP:OR issue, in my view, when the text to be edited requires a statement about, not Zionism, but 'Zion' the hill the name for which became central to traditions about the symbolic heartland of Judaism. Ollenburger says nothing of Zionism, but summarizes everything (up to 1987) one could wish to know about the scholarship on that 'Zion'.Nishidani (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

ps. by the way the extraordinary assertion that 'Zionism arose . . . (as) a consequence of the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment' should be removed as utterly contrafactual, in that Zionism was a reaction against the haskalah as much as anything.Nishidani (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean that the idea that Mount Zion "from ancient times became a core symbol of the Jewish cult centered around the kingship of Yahweh established in that city" or "became central to traditions about the symbolic heartland of Judaism" is (1) Ollenburger's own and not shared by many other scholars, which is presumably why no one has added it to Mount Zion or Zion, and (2) has nothing to do with Zionism. Buber makes a similar historical argument in On Zion, but his book is hardly an RS for Biblical history. The word "Zion" had been a poetic alternative to "Jerusalem" for millennia in 1882 and implied nothing cosmogonic whatsoever. In the political and philosophical terminology of Zionism (including Buber) it means either "Jerusalem" or "Israel", not a hill.

I don't necessarily agree with your thesis re Zionism as anti-Haskalah but it doesn't matter because you've misunderstood the current wording. It's a "consequence of the Haskalah" in that it was enabled by the Maskilic push for secular learning and cultural identity, not in that it was a linear intellectual outgrowth. Zionism required an outward-facing Westernized culture to germinate. And even if one goes as far as you the statement is still true: "reaction" itself implies a causal connection. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm only comfortable with source-based reasoning. If I state something, you may presume I have at least one source in mind. I'm busy but a few points. I'd appreciate it if the same methodology was shared by the page's interlocutors.
• I don't necessarily agree with your thesis re Zionism as anti-Haskalah but it doesn't matter because you've misunderstood the current wording.'
• (a)It's not my thesis. That Jewish nationalism arose in opposition to the haskalah is a commonplace. See for just one (related to a critique of a book on Zionism) Isaiah Friedman,Review: Gideon Shimoni—"The Zionist Ideology", Israel Studies , Spring, 1998, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring, 1998) pp. 251-265 p.252.
• (b) 'misunderstood the current wording'. You mean I don't grasp what the word 'consequence' means, I guess. Don't take my word for it. The O.E.D glosses it thus:'A thing or circumstance which follows as an effect or result from something preceding.'(O.E.D.1989 vol.3 p.762 column 1.

It follows, without imaginary construals like the one you provide, that our text in claiming that 'Zionism arose . . . as a consequence of the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, is asserting that Zionism 'followed as an effect or result of the Jewish enlightenment'.

The clear intimation of such a choice of words is that Zionism is somehow consequential on the enlightenment rather than being a reaction against the latter's general dismissal of nationalism.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

When I speak of the intent of the word "consequence" all I'm trying to do is summarize what the cited sources say about the relationship between Zionism and the Haskalah. It's simply not true that the Haskalah and Zionism developed separately. Peretz Smolenskin was both a very important Maskil and a proto-Zionist. His involvement in the transition from Haskalah to Zionism is detailed (for example) here.

I don't want to get dragged into semantics but the word "consequence" implies causality ("effect or result") without making a qualitative statement. Actions can have unintended, undesired, unanticipated consequences. Thus we can say at Orthodox Judaism that in the exact same period Geiger and others presented exegesis as an arbitrary, illogical process, and consequently defenders of tradition embraced Maimonides' claim that the Sages merely buttressed already received laws with biblical citations, rather than actually deriving them. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a matter of method, (a)Smolenskin, whose wiki biography is a bare stub without significant sourcing, died 11 years before Herzl's book. Indeed it is mostly free composition, which is the curse of wikipedia. It would be useful if you could flesh it out by adding material from the Hebrew source regarding him, but it doesn't change the point made per 'One swallow doesn't make a spring' or the Ciceronian 'exceptio probat regulam (b) Wiki articles (Orthodox Judaism, etc.) are not reliable sources. (c) it's our proverbial strawman, to rebut something, i.e. 'the Haskalah and Zionism developed separately,' when I never said anything even vaguely similar to that.

People can take or leave proposals like mine. Since the article can't be edited, it's pointless wasting time at the moment, or for some weeks/months, making suggestions here, I realize. But multiple sourcing from strong RS is the only way to secure an encuclopedic entry worthy of the name, and that should be achieved by adducing and discussion numerous scholarly sources, not just one or two.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Bnd, the adverb 'consequently' cannot gloss 'consequence'. The latter has the meaning I cited. The former simply indicates a succession in time, i.e. 'consecutively' without the implications of effect present in the substantive. The first lesson of historiography is to avoid post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not true. "Consequently" means precisely "as a consequence" and not "consecutively". GordonGlottal (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for this terrible lapse, of confusing its primary historic meaning with its modern use as the adverbial form of consequence. Of course it doesn't change things. Since 'consequence' implies result, and I object to that for the stated reasons, the adverb's use would suffer from the same problems. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Just going to insert here a passage from Derek Penslar's Zionism: An Emotional State (2023) ch. 1: The concept of Orthodox “forerunners” is also problematic in that it gives pride of place to only one of the many strands of modern Jewish sensibility that were necessary preconditions for the birth of Zionism. Another precondition was Jewish engagement in the cultural politics of nineteenth-century nationalist movements. Over the course of the nineteenth century throughout Europe (and, late in the 1800s, in the Middle East), writers chronicled their nation’s history and produced new editions of literary epics and new works of fiction and poetry. They not only exalted the alleged uniqueness and majesty of the national language but also standardized it, welding variants of a spoken vernacular into a literary medium; they modernized it as well, adding words to enable discussion of advances in science and technology. Jews also engaged in these efforts . . . in fact Zionism was deeply dependent on the Haskalah. Both movements sought to modernize Jewish culture and normalize the Jews’ existence while retaining a strong sense of Jewish particularity. Penslar doesn't really read Hebrew so a lot of the specific history in that book is confused, it's not really an RS for history per se; nonetheless he does a good job summarizing English-language scholarly consensus. Michael Stanislawski (2017) Zionism: A Very Short Introduction goes much further: The true historical invention of modern Jewish nationalism, and then Zionism, did not have any “precursors” but was the result of an internal development within the Jewish Enlightenment movement known as the Haskalah. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the two quotes. I admire Penslar's work, but, for some of the reasons you give, exercise care about it. For example, his recent biography of Herzl: The Charismatic Leader, covers a lot of the background but never once mentions 'haskalah' or even its translation 'enlightenment'. Three years later, he makes the judgment you cite. The point is that the direct descendants of the haskalah, its exemplars, leaders of Reform Judaism and the secularizing Jews, were not so much Jewish nationalists, whom we much study for Zionism, but overwhelmingly passionate patriots of each of their respective countries: their nationalism was Polish, German, French, English, Italian, etc.etc. I keep remarking on this defect in many studies. Zionism for almost two decades found an assent in 1% of Jewish communities, and great hostility from Jews in the haskalah mainstream, precisely because it challenged what they thought was the essence of their own enlightenment tradition. Zionism (as we see in Herzl's endless vituperations against prominent Haskalah Jews) unsurprisingly an ally in antisemitic nationalists for a brief time, and the latter were profoundly opposed to the Enlightenment and all it represented, as Herzl was violently opposed to assimilation, though himself, like everyone else in the early movement, thoroughly assimilated (and like most of its Western European promotors, would never have settled in the future state, preferring Europe). Intellectual history can go some way towards clarifying these things, but, though I haven't read it, Penslar's punningly titled Zionism: An Emotional State, touches the real core. ideologies spread not by rational persuasion but prove effective in so far as they are efficiently affective. But all this is straying from the simple points I wished to make, and I am under some obligations to spend more time in offwiki work.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope to respond to the rest when the Wimbleton final is over, and before the Spain vs English Euro final starts. But in essence, all your objections are met with a simple tweak, 'Zion became synonymous with, a heteronym for, Jerusalem'{{sfn|Renz|1999|p=85}}Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I don't know what "Renz 1999" is. This transition occurs relatively early even within the Biblical corpus, so Jerusalem at 1 Kings 8:1 "the city of David which is Zion" or Israel at Isaiah 51:16 "to say to Zion, you are my people". I imagine there are some sources specifically about the 19th-century concept more objective than Buber's but I don't know what they are. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I think you're operating with a political bias. You admire the Haskalah and Reform Judaism and secularization, but dislike Zionism, and you want to line up all the people you admire on the same "side" against the Zionists. But for one, a very large part of the Haskalah, from start to finish, took place among completely Orthodox-practicing Jews who opposed Reform-style theology and the ritual innovation which came to typify the Reform movement. Some early Zionists adopted anti-Maskilic rhetoric because of political differences, but even more tried to brand Haskalah as out-of-date for its (compared to Zionism) typically fundamentalist approach to religion. The banner of the Haskalah is just as credibly raised by Zionism, or by Modern Orthodoxy, which is an Orthodox-practicing but culturally Westernized and Zionist movement, or by Conservative Judaism, which is similarly Westernized and Zionist but is slightly more progressive in ritual practice and dramatically less focused on classical text study. All these movements claim to be the legacy of the Haskalah but in reality it's "all of the above". It's almost as silly as asking "which denomination is the true Judaism" or "which modern country is heir to ancient Rome".

I think maybe there's almost an automatic bias in reading exclusively English-language history of the Haskalah, because the authors are all people who interpreted the Haskalah in such a way that led them to write in English. But of course the Haskalah itself was very intentional in its use of Hebrew.

Anyway there weren't ever many "Jews in the Haskalah mainstream". Haskalah was a professional activist phenomenon which didn't succeed at developing self-sustaining institutions. There were Westernized Jews, but that isn't the same thing as being Haskalah Jews. The total number of non-Zionist non-Orthodox second-generation Hebrew readers probably maxed out in the four-digits. If you only count professional intellectuals, there were more anti-Zionist Maskilim than Zionists for a few years, sure.

I think you may like Penslar's next book a lot less, I've spoken to him recently and October 7 did a number on him. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If I read your last remark correctly, well, what a pity. I wasn't surprised by 7 October, as opposed to being horrified. Of course, like everyone, I have biases. Commitment to scholarship is premised on an awareness of how ineludible this is, and a commitment to watching oneself as one researches and writes to weed out, or render oneself less fragile to those pressures as one assays the evidence. My point re the Haskalah, aside from the usual general works, reflects a 'bias' in reading numerous biographies of the great minds, poets and musicians of the haskalah and post-haskala dispension, where religion is almost zero (Walter Benjamin is a special case), and whose activities went a long way to informing, civilizing and taming the ethnocentric cast of Western civilization. My shower's running and I must rush to a dental appointment, but what I wrote reflected among other texts. Friedman's critique of Shimoni's book on Zionism.

In his chapter dealing with the origins of Zionist ideology, Shimoni relies heavily on the theory of Anthony D. Smith. Smith argues that the matrix of Jewish nationalism is traceable to the ethnic (he uses the French term “ethnie” )composition of a given society. Nationalism matured in the modern period, and its standard bearer was the intelligentsia. In Smith's own words: "Nationalism is born among the intelligentsia, when the 'messianic' assimilationists try to realize their former vision by adopting the ethnicity solution of the defensive reforming 'revivalists'." This fusion produces "the ideological spark of the rationalist movement.",

Taking a cue from Smith, Shimoni attributes the same role to the nineteenth-century haskala movement. However, there is a snag. Smith's theory is based primarily on the European experience; it hardly sits well with the development of nationalism in Africa and Asia,2 and, to my mind,is inapplicable to the historical experience of the Jews. With due respect,Jewish nationalism is not Smith's forte. A glaring example of his lack of familiarity with Jewish thought and history clearly transpires in his article in which he considers nineteenth-century Reform Judaism in Germany as the progenitor of Jewish nationalism. This assertion is palpably fallacious,for, if anything, the Reform Movement was the antithesis of Jewish nationalism. Its ideologues deliberately expunged national elements from Judaism in order to make Jews eligible for emancipation and equality of civic rights. Hence their redefinition of Jewish identity as "Germans of Jewish faith," which became a model for the Jewish communities. pp.251-251Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Do I have a bias in citing that? Well, Smith walked out of the first lecture I gave. It was on a topic he knew nothing about, Japanese nationalism, and (not taking that personally, for my neophyte lecture was horribly turgid) I only realised why when I later read his deeply flawed 'The Ethnic Orgins of Nations', which reads as an attempt by a passionate Zionist to rewrite the theory of nationalism in such a way that it would vindicate the normalcy of Israel. In that, I sided with Smith's great mentor, Ernest Gellner, who, once hearing me lecture, gave me his friendship. Neither, I believe, knew much about Judaism. Like myself at a far lower level of achievement, they were comparativists. Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As to my 'political bias', that is a 'bias' that comes from a principle of historical methodology: that in a historical conflict between two parties, one must read in the light of what both sides were aspiring to achieve, and did. It may not be true, but numerous observers have remarked on the essentially closed, self-referential characteristic of the historiography of Zionism on Jews, as they immigrated into Palestine under that banner. The thrust of most of that literature is the long Jewish history of oppression in Europe, and how this dilemma was resolved by Jews in building Israel in the Middle East. Palestine as an overwhelmingly Arab country was marginalized as an embarrassing obstacle, though every measure taken by Zionism affected them deeply. One has occasional allusions to spiriting them across the border (Herzl), shifting them out of our future valleys (Ben-Gurion) ad infinitum. But, understandably, the impelling concern is with us, our security. The only historian I know of who approaches this even-handedly is Henry Laurens in his 4-volume magnum opus, in a historiography that is dominated by and large by Israeli and diaspora scholars, and that reflects their deep emotional assent to the creation of a Jewish state (whose corollary was the non-creation of a Palestinian Arab state ineludibly. I'm alluding to Hannah Arendt's point in The Origins of Totalitarianism that the 'solution' to the 'Jewish question' undertaken by Zionism merely created a mirroring 'Palestinian Question' of a new stateless people). That it was in a country where 95% of the population around 1900 was not Jewish is rarely grasped for its fundamental structural implications. Palestinians are irrelevant to resolving a millennarian problem of Jewish statelessness. And if it is 'political' that I read the literature by bearing in mind, as I read Zionist history, the 'other' suppressed context in which Zionism put down its roots, then how do we describe the vast amount of our secondary literature which is written from within the fold of an almost religious attachment to the narrative primacy of one's own 'Jewish'/Israeli identity as a heuristic premise? Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024

This is the wrong definition and has no basis in what the movement actually is. Source: the actual original literature of the Zionist movement. It's about the actualization of a safe homeland for the Jewish people

https://zoa.org/about/ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Theodor-Herzl 109.253.218.115 (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Colonization usage in this article contradicts its definition in Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Colonialization is define in Wikipedia as: " a process of establishing control over foreign territories or peoples for the purpose of exploitation and possibly settlement, setting up coloniality and often colonies, commonly pursued and maintained by colonialism."

Is there any evidence, that Zionism or Zionist movement had or has any idea or aim to exploit people of any territory it wished to settle?

Unless exploitation evidence related to Zionism are given or the definition of the word Colonialization is changed, I suggest to change the first paragraph -

From:

Zionism[a] is an ethno-cultural nationalist[1][fn 1] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe.

To:

Zionism[a] is an ethno-cultural nationalist[1][fn 1] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through settlement and development of a land outside of Europe. Yanf81 (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done. WP is not a source. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean Wikipedia is not a source? I condsider any info provided in this platform as a reliable and well checked and evidence backed source. Here I just pointed out that one definition contradicts another definition in the same platform called Wikipedia, and I think that should be fixed Yanf81 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even if it were, read the second sentence of the Wikipedia article you're citing. There is no contradiction. Levivich (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yanf81, what did you see that resulted in you posting this request as your first edit? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Best not to engage non EC editors in conversation on article talk pages, they aren't allowed to respond anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

True, but someone has to test whether it's possible to get reported at AE for WP:NOTLAB violations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, if you must, then the editor's talk page would be better? Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Look, it's obvious that the wave after wave of new accounts arriving here with the same complaint, often using the same language, and employing the same sophistry, are coming from a centralized location. But I find it funny that anyone would make the argument that Zionism can't be a colonial movement because, as they claim, it had no intention of exploiting the land of what was once called Mandatory Palestine. Make the desert bloom? Who would claim they were trying to do that?Dan Murphy (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just symptomatic of the ongoing discussions, which need to be put to bed formally at some point so as to put an end to all this (at least for a while). Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The question I would like to answer is who is producing the most persuasive messaging that has the best chance of resulting in an edit request. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It'd be nice if we could make it a two-way dialogue. I'd love to send a message back to the source (whatever it is) that because the Zionists named their own institutions "Colonization" and "Colonial", because their leaders described it as colonization, and because academia describes it as colonization, Wikipedia therefore describes it as colonization, and efforts to change that will never be effective. They need to just embrace that it was what it was and Wikipedia is not an effective tool to rewrite history (just ask everyone else who's tried). Levivich (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like the kind of thing someone trying to "capture these areas of Wikipedia and turn them into anti-Israel propaganda" would say. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marcus Garvey and Black Zionism

Is this section just about movements inspired by zionism? I don't know much about marcus garvey or "black zionism", but "zion" barely has any matches in any of the wikilinked articles.

Should we rename this to "movements inspired by zionism"? or does is it missing a lot of relevant information? or just remove it entirely? DMH223344 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll remove this section. If someone disagrees please revert and discuss here DMH223344 (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Inline citations for colonization in lead

Currently the inline citations in the lead present only quotes from the primary sources — from the founders of Zionism. It should rather be presenting quotes of secondary sources stating that Zionism was colonial. Perhaps something @Levivich would be interested in correcting. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammad: I do not understand your removal? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Zionist consensus

Hello DMH223344, I don't understand this edit summary. What do you mean by "the definition of the quoted term given is at least specific to after 1948"? The paragraph where I added this information also talks about modern Zionism, which appears to fit well with the content I introduced. The rest of that section also discusses incidents post-1948. Hogo-2020 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the first paragraph of a section titled "Overview", so defining a new term "Zionist consensus" especially one with a definition that is only relevant after 1948 is not appropriate DMH223344 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

An overview surely also encompasses definitions from 1948 to the present, specially since that section also discusses incidents post-1948. I'll move this further down the section where 1948 events are mentioned and add more sources. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine further down in the section. Really, this whole section shouldnt even be here since we already have the lead which should serve the same purpose as this section. DMH223344 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If you find something would be better placed somewhere in the article, please move it there instead of deleting it. Also see WP:LEAD. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)